Politicians from all parties have put aside their differences to pass a council planning blueprint which will see hundreds of homes built on the green belt near Bath.

Bath and North East Somerset Council met last night at the Assembly Rooms to vote through its core strategy, a document which outlines how the area will develop over the next 16 years.

It includes controversial plans to build 600 houses on protected land in Odd Down and Weston.

Councillor Tim Ball (Lib Dem, Twerton), the council’s cabinet member for homes and planning, accepted that the plans were not ideal, but said the authority had tough decisions to make after the Government pressed it to find more sites for housing.

Related content

He said: “It has been a challenge to identify suitable locations, there are no easy sites.”

The new core strategy, which will be put to an independent planning inspector later this year, now contains proposals for 12,700 new homes up to 2029.

These include 300 on the land between Odd Down and South Stoke, 300 on land near Primrose Hill in Weston, 120 on an extension to the Ensleigh Ministry of Defence site, which takes in the Royal High School’s playing fields, and hundreds more on sites in Keynsham, Whitchurch and the Somer Valley.

Council leader Paul Crossley (Lib Dem, Southdown) added: “What is absolutely crucial is that we need to send a clear message to the inspector that this council is ready to answer the questions he asked us and is ready to go with a plan for 12,700 houses spread across the authority.”

The reworking of the core strategy came about after a Government inspector criticised the local authority’s previous projection that it only needed 11,000 new homes.

Opposition members admitted they were unhappy with some aspects of the core strategy, but said they wanted to pull together to make sure the authority had its vital blueprint.

Leader of the Conservatives Councillor Francine Haeberling (Con, Saltford) said that without a core strategy there would be a “planning free-for-all” with unauthorised development across the region.

She said: “We feel we have no choice but to support the general points of the core strategy, albeit very reluctantly.”

A Conservative amendment to put new land in the green belt in exchange for building on other sites was accepted.

There were a number of public speakers, with the vast majority raising concerns about development on the sites in Odd Down and Whitchurch.

Robert Hellard, vice-chairman of South Stoke Parish Council, said there were many reasons why the Odd Down site should not be included, including the fact that it was in the green belt and much of it was designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

He said: “We ask you now to remove this Cotswold Plateau area from your list of potential development sites.

“Failure to do this will inevitably lead to the ruin of South Stoke as a village and set a precedent which would allow a Green Field First policy to be pursued here and in other green belt or AONB zones around our World Heritage City.”

This view was backed by Councillor Neil Butters (Lib Dem, Bathavon South), who voted against his party because he said he had to listen to the views of his constituents.

He said: “I do of course appreciate the need for more housing, but as the local ward councillor I must listen to local opinion, which in this case is overwhelming.”

Councillor Colin Barrett (Con, Weston) spoke out against the development in his area, raising the issue of potential flooding problems.

He added that the people of Weston were not Nimbys, but just did not believe it was a suitable site.

Chief executive of the Bath Preservation Trust Caroline Kay warned the council about the dangers of proposing house-building on green belt land on the outskirts of the city.

She said: “After all, if we do not respect AONB, green belt and conservation designations for the UK’s only whole-city World Heritage Site, is any green location safe?”

A core strategy consultation will now be launched later this month, with a range of surgery events running from March 26 to May 8.

During that time people will be able to give their views online by going to www.bathnes.gov.uk/corestrategy.

34 comments

@ Margenpie: You are right in that there should be no building or at least a ' restrictive covenant ' on the green field sites being proposed for those that do build on or buy the housing on those sites. A restrictive covenant (RC) can determine the future use of the land around and the gardens created attached to those new homes. It is a lot like a section 106 agreement. Where a section 106 is used by developers to sweeten the local authority financially i.e. developers pay to support a local public transport infrastructure or school, a RC will act like listing but instead of the structure an RS states what must happen to the land - in this example a home owners must plant native, life supporting plants.
Phil Welch, Editor of the Mid Somerset Journal (MSJ) over ten years ago failed to care that I was attacking the local authority to ruining our world. In the end I had to phone and threaten Phil with opening my own investigation into the MSJ before he published a Letter to the Editor. It is surprising how many court cases are in action in local public courts, but they are covered up by both the courts and the media. Access to the information is difficult because most are not recorded properly and taking a recording device into court is Contempt of Court. I got threatened with prison for trying to use one.
Back to house-building. Houses are a must, or stopping immigration is a must. People need to chose. Or, failing that, stop having children everyone. Again, take your pick people. Or limit the children you can have like the Chinese policy. A hard choice. Or, create housing that is environmentally sensitive, use land to encourage wildlife using a RC and stop using synthetic products contained in paint, glues, varnishes, cosmetics, clothing, dyes, inks, etc. Chose things that break down in the environment naturally. Did you know that Wessex Water stated that they cannot clean your waste water properly because it contains so many synthetic pollutants? Did you know that ten years ago of the 100,000 + products people flush down their sinks and/or into the environment Bristol Water only test for 20 of them. The rest are not tested for because they are not told to by Water Regulations? Crazy!
House building could be both beneficial to humans and animals if RC were used. But the local authority and central government refuse to do so because they love petroleum products and unethical banks. And you are right, Tridos and Co-Operative Bank are ethical investors, Except last time I inquired Tridos did not have a national ability to access their banks which is why I have been a Co-Operative Bank customer since 2000. However, beware, Co-Operative could do more, but they will have to do as they are the lesser of the evils.

Thanks waynejkc69 for taking the time to write a considered reply.
@waynejkc69
"As for parents wanting to take their children to nice places? There aren't any."
You are spot on that much of the countryside is worthless for wildlife (that's probably why Drewski's comment about 90% of the country being undeveloped raised some eyebrows). You are also spot on about non-native plants. I also wonder how many gardeners realise that a lot of modern garden flowers either don't produce nectar or have been so distorted through selective breeding that native wildlife can't access any nectar they do produce?
However, the areas of Weston and Odd Down I'm talking about really are nice places to take children (and people do): rough pasture, clear springs, thick hedgerows, old mature native trees, buzzards, owls, foxes, badgers, wildflower meadows, butterflies… And criss-crossed with public footpaths. Not green concrete and very much accessible to the public: that's why I don't think we should allow them to be destroyed for housing as the first resort.
Remember how we got to here. As @Dave_Weston said, "What we've actually got is a panicked response to the last ballsup, someone has got the map of Bath out and hurriedly crayoned a few smudgy areas on it with no reference to field boundaries or other landmarks, and shoved it into a document that local electorate will get no meaningful chance to comment on before it goes (as is) straight to the planning inspector for approval."
If people (especially the kids) learn to appreciate the natural world on their own doorstep, I would hope they are well on the way to understanding that every bit of the natural world is someone's doorstep – or all of our doorstep – and, as a result, taking more of an interest in precisely the topics you raise: pollution, over-zealous herbicide use and so on.
@waynejkc69
"Did you know that if you look at your local authority pension portfolio you will see property as an investment asset; or an unethical bank and petroleum companies as top ten assets?" Very true. And all the more reason to question their decisions on property development. Most personal pensions are just the same. Luckily there are ethical banks too, like Triodos and the Co-Op.
@waynejkc69
"So Margipie, you do have a house and you admit it is now built on what was once GREEN FIELD."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 of which reads "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … housing", also says that "Everyone has the right to own property" (Article 17). I'm not prepared to accept that my opinion lost all validity the moment I finally moved out of rented accommodation and bought a house. Everyone's home, place of work, road, railway, hospital used to be a green field, more or less. That doesn't mean we have to start right now building on every green field that's left.
@waynejkc69
"As for 'affordable housing' we need it and it should be provided by the state."
Yes. Not by private developers who have to be bribed with the promise of prime greenfield sites and only a token 'affordable housing' requirement.
@waynejkc69
"unlike your fans"
Fans? So far you waynejkc69 are the only person who seems to have agreed with anything I've said.

@ Margenpie: As for parents wanting to take their children to nice places? There aren't any. Many streams and rivers are so badly polluted by home owners, businesses and farmers that there are no fish in them. Wild flowers and birds? These have been destroyed by over zealous herbicide use by local authorities, farmers and home owners with gardens. Trees and shrubs? Most local authorities and developers, including home owners, plant species such as fur and laurel, etc. These are resistant to birds and insects and thus sterilize the environment. So most of those that vote to have a ' countryside ' are in fact the very destroyers of it.
I have been doing research for 13 years and I have written tens of thousands of requests for information under the FOI Act. Some of you should try it. Then you might know what I know. Then you might have a reasoned debate instead of opening your mouths or voting me down without actually knowing what you are talking or voting about.
Did you know that if you look at your local authority pension portfolio you will see property as an investment asset; or an unethical bank and petroleum companies as top ten assets? TAKE A LOOK at their YEARLY ACCOUNTS. Having these assets means they actually make money from building where ever they want and polluting everything. You need to attack this and you need to get it out in to the media. However, people like Phil Welch, Editor of the Mid Somerset Journal will work his hardest to cover it up. People like that have posted this ' propaganda picture of a little girl trying to save the very countryside her parents are investing to pollute. Start scratching the surface and then see what I see. I'm giving you a head start.

@ Margenpie: You are right. Brown fields and areas of land that contain important structures should be preserved as best can be. For those that want sensible areas considered then for sure they should be first on the list.
One planning manager I spoke to where I live, Exeter (though I lived for 16 years in Shepton Mallet) stated that areas of housing will be built on flat land to help create a road and rail infrastructure. But that does not mean that certain areas around it cannot be then used as wildlife havens with further funding from developers and local authorities.
Most housing protestors already have a house which is why they are TOO SCARED to answer my DIRECT QUESTIONS. Thus they are hypocrites and any vote down is no vote at all without an reply. I am replying to you thus I am certain I am well informed enough to make a VALID COMMENT and not as you say Margenpie a nuanced debate. Stop trying to destabilize others that don't have the stomach to do proper research but just come on here and vote against my sensible suggestions and reasoning.
So Margipie, you do have a house and you admit it is now built on what was once GREEN FIELD. That really answers my question and you honesty is appreciated. As for ' affordable housing ' we need it and it should be provided by the state. What many on here need to do is ask why we need to build at all. The answer to that is that we have opened up our borders to workers and students, etc. Maybe you should be attacking that instead of stopping me and thousands of other tax-paying, domicile UK residents from having a home of my own that is stable? Try it. Write to your MP and see how far you get. My MP Ben Bradshaw, Exeter is a property owner (implied by his refusal to answer) and he is making a killing renting out. Anybody thought of that? Houses are being bought up to rent out and that borders are being opened up by your own MPs to subsidize their lifestyle at the cost of the countryside. It is not my fault but theirs. attack them, but until they resolve it, and they won't, I would like a home of my own please.
Any body ticking me down without a proper reasoned answer is a coward. I am fascinated to see how many cowards there are so far. In fact, you Margenpie are earning my respect, unlike your fans.

@waynejkc69
"You are hypocrites and you all fail to read the evidence. You are quite pathetic in you ability to think outside your own self-I'm-ok-Jack-screw-anyone-else-box. You are the type of people that deliberately create suffering and poverty. Proud of yourselves? And how many of you have planted native plants to support wildlife in ALL of your gardens? Very few if any I bet?"
Now that's a more nuanced debate. I'm curious though: is everyone who owns a house deliberately creating suffering and poverty? Or are the hypocrites only deliberately creating suffering and poverty if they own a house and still refuse to accept that private companies should be able to destroy community assets as long as they sweeten the deal with a token number of 'affordable' homes?
Of course pretty much everyone's home stands on land that was once green fields or a woodland or whatever. Does that mean that all "undeveloped" land is equally suitable for development? Is it conceivable that it might make more sense to develop land that isn't enjoyed for free all the time by lots of ordinary people? Like, say, some fields that aren't in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with open public access and don't contain Scheduled Ancient Monuments?
@waynejkc69
"Drewski is speaking the truth but you protestors deliberately chose not to look at evidence."
Of course Drewski is speaking the truth, but Drewski's truth and evidence demonstrate only that more housing is needed, not that it has to be built wherever a developer might most fancy. According to the Chronicle a few weeks ago, "There is planning permission for more than 4,300 homes which have yet to be built in Bath and north east Somerset... The 4,300 figure does not include some of the area's major brownfield sites, such as former MoD land in Bath and the Somerdale Cadbury factory site in Keynsham." Are you sure Crest and all the others are really on your side?
And yet the only possible conclusion is that all proposed private-sector developments everywhere must be accepted, that unrestricted private-sector development will put the most needy first and anyone who disagrees is Satan's lapdog (AND grows non-native plants in their garden)? Really?

I know! Why don't we go one step further? The planet is supposed to be ' over crowded ' right? So why don't all you people who protest against house building, but who have children, demand that anyone who does not already have children be denied ever having the ability to have children? It's the same argument as you having a home yet denying me a home. Why don't you just demand I get sterilized too? After all, what with your child now being part of the ' over crowding ' issue people without children should be denied any future to have their own. That would also help the housing issue too would it not? Your children can live in what has been built and because no other children are allowed then no more houses are needed.
Here is another one: - Why don't you people with cars deny anyone else the ability to own and drive a car because, after all, the roads are too congested and we don't want anymore roads built, or the roads that currently exist widened do we? Now that you have your car it is selfish of those without cars, but would like them, to ask for a car isn't it? The list goes on.

@Margenpie: are you a home-owner? Do you have a place to live? What do you think it was built on? That's more than likely going to be what was once green field isn't it? In fact, all of you in your cozy homes protesting against housing want to deny that your house sits on old green field. You are hypocrites and you all fail to read the evidence. You are quite pathetic in you ability to think outside your own self-I'm-ok-Jack-screw-anyone-else-box. You are the type of people that deliberately create suffering and poverty. Proud of yourselves? And how many of you have planted native plants to support wildlife in ALL of your gardens? Very few if any I bet? Hypocrites again.
Drewski is speaking the truth but you protestors deliberately chose not to look at evidence. You are arbitrary in nature and selfish in vision. It's a shame that your voice has been listened to for the past 25 to 40 years which is how we ended up in this terrible housing shortage position.

@Drewski
How about a more nuanced debate? The stance that you can't build affordable houses there because they will be visible from my house is pretty indefensible. But so too is the argument that because house building has been neglected for decades and a certain proportion of the country is undeveloped according to a certain (not particularly meaningful) definition, substantial large developments containing a relatively small proportion of affordable housing have to be built in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty around Bath.
And doesn't everyone have a vested interest in their environment?

I'm bowing out here as the truth and statistical evidence is getting me nowhere.
If you have vested interests (your own views or house value etc.) and simply don't want houses near you regardless of need - fine, just be clear and honest about it - as opposed to claiming opposition is based on moral values.
However, if you *genuinely* believe that the UK is overdeveloped, is running out of green space, doesn't need more housing or that there isn't a housing crisis at all, I would advise you look up the studies and evidence on the housing crisis and UK land use. I'm not sure I can post links in comments, so I will just point you to Policy Exchange, the London School of Economics, Shelter, Ipsos MORI, Office of National Statistics and RIBA. There is a wealth of information out there for you and none of it corroborates the above views.

@waynejkc69
Maybe her parents just think it would be good if there were still some nice places left to go for a walk in the countryside when she is big enough to have children of her own. Maybe they see more value in a green field or patch of woodland than just how much it would be worth with houses on it. Maybe they'd like her to grow up having access to space where she can run wild, play safely, get some fresh air and learn something of the natural world - all for free. Perhaps they have already made compromises in their own life to give her that opportunity.
The fact that there is a shortage of housing at the moment in this area does not mean that every development of every size in every location is consequently a great idea. Nor does it mean that arbitrarily drawing some circles on the map and pronouncing them development sites without consulting the people who already live here is necessarily the best way to tackle the housing issue. And nor does it mean that anyone opposed to the new plans also wants to see people left homeless.
Creating an artificial conflict between those who need a home on the one side and those who already have one on the other side might be an easy get-out for the council and certainly promises a major windfall for developers, but it does not serve current or future residents well. How many of the proposed new homes are going to go to people who are currently inadequately housed? One of the figures for Bath itself suggests 7005 new homes by 2029, 1868 of which are classed as 'affordable'. Is that enough? The rest - the great majority - are going to go to people who sell a perfectly good house somewhere else. How is that going to help Bath, given that we are not exactly flush with jobs, there seem to be few new employment opportunities on the horizon and congestion is already a major issue? At this ratio of 'affordable' housing to, presumably, unaffordable housing, how many new homes in total will have to be built in order to make a meaningful dent in the housing waiting list, which Viscount Vixley reliably informs us is well into five figures?
These are undoubtedly contentious issues. Contentious issues about which there seems to be no debate until the council says "Build them here!" Then the residents of Keynsham, Newton St. Looe or wherever explain why that particular spot would be unwise. It seems a policy devised to incite nimbyism: don't invite anyone's opinion, don't encourage any debate and adopt arbitrary decisions with little or no warning. And again, it serves nobody but big developers who have no interest in the city, its communities or its future. While it may be true that the council's hand has been forced by central government, that should not give it a get out of jail free card for whatever decisions it takes.